search_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is incoherent and does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. The phrase 'visible to this session' hints at scoping but is not elaborated, and the rest of the text is nonsensical.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is not concise; it is a run-on, garbled sentence that mixes a simple read operation with irrelevant client-side filtering and pivot/aggregate instructions. It is not front-loaded and contains confusing, contradictory guidance. Every sentence fails to earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. It does neither coherently. The garbled text actively harms usability, and the tool cannot be correctly invoked based on this description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden to carry. The description's mention of 'objects visible to this session' adds a minimal semantic hint about implicit scoping, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. The garbled text does not detract from parameter semantics because there are no parameters to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is garbled and tautological: 'Read Note objects visible to this session' is the only coherent fragment, but it is immediately followed by nonsensical text ('Filter the returned objects in client-side code, then pass selected IDs to pivot, set or aggregate tools'). It does not clearly state what the tool does, and the name 'read_note' is merely restated. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_note or search_note.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The garbled instruction to 'filter the returned objects in client-side code' is misleading and does not explain when to prefer read_note over get_note, search_note, or other siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.